Parallel Entry to Holds

higney85 said:
No, as the gpws would yell at me if it was attempted, outside of situational awareness already screaming a problem..Is there a good story here?... Cause by your example I'm thinking you saw someone give it a go....
Click to expand...

Whenever I practice hand-flown raw data parallel entries I always do it per AIM and it works out much better than flying it entirely on the protected side.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Whenever I practice hand-flown raw data parallel entries I always do it per AIM and it works out much better than flying it entirely on the protected side.
Click to expand...

I have no words. The protected side is covered for both terrain and air traffic, which are the threats, but we might be misconstruing details. My holds tend to be in the NE corridor and in the flight levels. "Just don't hit the other planes" becomes the guiding principle. Haven't heard a peep from ATC once, beyond pulling me out of holding, all in the protected airspace.

If you remain in the protected airspace, raw data or not, it keeps you within the aim... Which is predicated on remaining in the protected airspace. That's why it exists, and isn't called the "preferred airspace". No, it's protected. For a good reason.
 
higney85 said:
I have no words. The protected side is covered for both terrain and air traffic, which are the threats, but we might be misconstruing details. My holds tend to be in the NE corridor and in the flight levels. "Just don't hit the other planes" becomes the guiding principle. Haven't heard a peep from ATC once, beyond pulling me out of holding, all in the protected airspace.

If you remain in the protected airspace, raw data or not, it keeps you within the aim... Which is predicated on remaining in the protected airspace. That's why it exists, and isn't called the "preferred airspace". No, it's protected. For a good reason.
Click to expand...

I like that you started your post with having no words, which immediately preceded two paragraphs. At any rate, neither of our techniques are technically wrong.
 
gotWXdagain said:
I like that you started your post with having no words, which immediately preceded two paragraphs. At any rate, neither of our techniques are technically wrong.
Click to expand...

Yea yea.. Nomenclature. It also comes down to the word "protected side" in the sense that the term is used widely As long as we agree that we are staying within the cleared and/or published area we are saying the same thing. The idea of "protected" comes down the the controller unless it's a published hold, where things become more obvious many times.
 
Maurus said:
Pretty much. Keeps the direction of turns the same in the hold at all times to help eliminate the possibility of turning the wrong direction. Intercepting the inbound course prior to the holding fix is much easier. As a result you can now make accurate drift corrections on your outbound leg. You can make the inbound easy on a parallel entry by going direct to the fix but then you have sub-optimal information to help correct your outbound leg.

Basically with a teardrop you are stabilized within the hold much earlier and it provides a bit more situational awareness.
Click to expand...
Thanks. As others suggested, it's more of a non-issue in the world of FMS that draw the hold and suggest an entry, although I will disregard the "parallel entry" annunciation when it "looks right" to me. But I'm all for anything that simplifies holding, one of those topics that is made far more complicated than it needs to be.

Interesting, though, in that I think there is a school that teaches direct and parallel for everything :)
 
higney85 said:
Yea yea.. Nomenclature. It also comes down to the word "protected side" in the sense that the term is used widely As long as we agree that we are staying within the cleared and/or published area we are saying the same thing. The idea of "protected" comes down the the controller unless it's a published hold, where things become more obvious many times.
Click to expand...
On the nomenclature, I don't think you will find the phrase "protected side" in any FAA publication. The AIM and other FAA publications use "holding side" and "nonholding side" which avoids any confusion over the phrase "widely used" by different people to mean different things ;)

There is protected airspace on both sides of a hold. Here's an example of one of the ~30 holding pattern templates in use.
holding.png
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
You have me curious. This never crossed my mind. I admit to a preference for teardrop over parallel when things are close but still see situations where parallel is the easiest choice.

A simple one is approaching the holding fix from the holding side on a course perpendicular to the holding course. In a standard right turn pattern, parallel is a simple 90 degree left turn. Direct is a right 270. Teardrop is, I suppose, a left turn about 30 degrees past parallel 120 degrees total).

Are you saying you think the extra 30 degrees to be able to make a "normal" right turn to the inbound makes more sense than having to make a left turn to intercept the inbound?
View attachment 33563
Click to expand...

1 like for MS Paint.
 
OK ill say it again, ATC dose not care how you enter a holding pattern as long as you stay in the PROTECTED SIDE of the pattern. That is all.
 
queeno said:
OK ill say it again, ATC dose not care how you enter a holding pattern as long as you stay in the PROTECTED SIDE of the pattern. That is all.
Click to expand...
If you mean in the PROTECTED AIRSPACE (both "sides" are protected), to whom are you saying it again? I haven't seen anyone suggest anything different.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
If you mean in the PROTECTED AIRSPACE (both "sides" are protected), to whom are you saying it again? I haven't seen anyone suggest anything different.
Click to expand...

Yea well tell that to the Air France that took a left turn at Pivot ( the wrong way) into KORD east departure track how much protection there was .
 
queeno said:
OK ill say it again, ATC dose not care how you enter a holding pattern as long as you stay in the PROTECTED SIDE of the pattern. That is all.
Click to expand...
I don't even care about that. Holding altitude is at or above my MVA all around the holding fix? Cool, enter how you want and hold any direction you want unless I gave you something else.
 
queeno said:
Yea well tell that to the Air France that took a left turn at Pivot ( the wrong way) into KORD east departure track how much protection there was .
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not familiar with an Air France accident that happened because they made a parallel entry into a hold and crossed into the protected portion of non-holding side. Can you point me to the NTSB report so I can learn about it?

And I still haven't seen anyone suggest that it's a good idea to leave protected airpace.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Sorry, I'm not familiar with an Air France accident that happened because they made a parallel entry into a hold and crossed into the protected portion of non-holding side. Can you point me to the NTSB report so I can learn about it?

And I still haven't seen anyone suggest that it's a good idea to leave protected airpace.
Click to expand...

There was no accident or NTSB report on this because the controllers involved observed what was happening and battle vectored the crap out of the 3 aircraft involved and by the grace of god managed not to even have a loss of separation , but let me till you it would not have been pretty. This happened on a direct entry to a published holding pattern on a published arrival route even thought the arrival controller specified in the holding clrn to make a RIGHT turn which was read back by the crew. My point is ATC dont care how you enter just stay on the BIG side and you will have no problems.
 
Stinger said:
I don't even care about that. Holding altitude is at or above my MVA all around the holding fix? Cool, enter how you want and hold any direction you want unless I gave you something else.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the middle of bum screw Iowa but around a busy terminal it dose matter .
 
Why not just slow the heck down on your way to the fix and receive your approach clearance before you have to turn left OR right? I've probably avoided holding ten times using that method...:cool:
 
queeno said:
There was no accident or NTSB report on this because the controllers involved observed what was happening and battle vectored the crap out of the 3 aircraft involved and by the grace of god managed not to even have a loss of separation , but let me till you it would not have been pretty. This happened on a direct entry to a published holding pattern on a published arrival route even thought the arrival controller specified in the holding clrn to make a RIGHT turn which was read back by the crew. My point is ATC dont care how you enter just stay on the BIG side and you will have no problems.
Click to expand...
Based on your description that they were cleared for a right hand pattern with a direct entry and turned left, I agree with you completely. The failire to follow an ATC instruction in busy airspace definitely would not have been pretty.

But I really don't see that as an example why it is a bad thing to follow a hold instruction by doing an approved method of hold entry.
 
higney85 said:
I have no words. The protected side is covered for both terrain and air traffic, which are the threats, but we might be misconstruing details. My holds tend to be in the NE corridor and in the flight levels. "Just don't hit the other planes" becomes the guiding principle. Haven't heard a peep from ATC once, beyond pulling me out of holding, all in the protected airspace.

If you remain in the protected airspace, raw data or not, it keeps you within the aim... Which is predicated on remaining in the protected airspace. That's why it exists, and isn't called the "preferred airspace". No, it's protected. For a good reason.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the AIM-standard parallel entry that includes flight on the nonholding side is in protected airspace (see my linked graphic of the template). For a good reason.

And, I don't think anyone disagrees that so long as one remains in protected airspace and doesn't give ATC a reason to think that they won't remain there (which is what I get from @queeno's example of a botched direct entry), all will be well.
 
Last edited:
MidlifeFlyer said:
Based on your description that they were cleared for a right hand pattern with a direct entry and turned left, I agree with you completely. The failire to follow an ATC instruction in busy airspace definitely would not have been pretty.

But I really don't see that as an example why it is a bad thing to follow a hold instruction by doing an approved method of hold entry.
Click to expand...

JESUS MARY AND JOSEPH, i never said using any approved holding method was bad or good all iam saying is ATC DOSE NOT CARE HOW YOU GET THERE AS LONG AS YOU STAY ON THE BIG SIDE OF THE HOLDING PATTERN THERE IS LIMITED PROTECTECTION ON THE NON HOLDING SIDE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH TARMAC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top